Ingram v. McCuiston
Supreme Court of North Carolina
134 S.E.2d 705 (N.C. 1964)
In her negligence suit over injuries from a car accident, Ingram (plaintiff) had her orthopedic specialist, Dr. Miller, respond to an extended hypothetical from her attorney that included assumed and embellished facts never established at trial — such as that Ingram had been in excellent health before the accident, developed suicidal tendencies afterward, and suffered additional spinal disabilities — along with irrelevant childhood anecdotes. Dr. Miller testified the accident could have caused the described conditions, partly basing his opinion on Ingram's psychiatrist's separate testimony; the trial court admitted this testimony and ruled for Ingram, and McCuiston (defendant) appealed.
Whether a hypothetical question posed to an expert witness is admissible when it includes irrelevant, assumed, or embellished facts not established at trial.